Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The thing I like about the new FCC rules is that if the ISP's want to give preferential high speeds to some of its customers to distinguish themselves from their competitors, they will have to do it for all of their customers. This will foster competition among ISP's to finally provide faster speeds, rather than simply pocketing all the excess fees given to promote connectivity, but little used for that purpose.

I can't wait for the first ISP to claim they are the fastest. This is the quickest way toward observing the Red Queen Hypothesis in action.

The Wyoming rule sounds attractive by the modern GOP would never let California have another 13 additional seats. However, given the nature of Wyoming, why not go all the way and require that all congressional districts be simply "at-large". This would eliminate all the gerrymandering as well. If congressional candidates can campaign state wide in Alaska, there is no reason all the rest couldn't do it as well.

Your comment goes to show just how far the US has fallen by accepting the ISP's line that if they are not regulated, we will get better service and faster high speed roll out. Friends of my family in Japan pay about $30 per month for 100 GB/sec speeds (yes that is 100 GibaBits/second). I've heard the Koreans are putting government funds to ensure everyone in the country is up and running at 100 GB/sec for about $10/month.

There is competition in many cities as there are many different taxi companies. If you don't think so, you are free to start your own taxi company and prove your point.

The fact is that in many kinds of markets there really is a role for government to play so that costs and consequences of business practices don't get passed off onto the public. This is one of those situations, where regulations and requiring ALL businesses to play by the same set of rules makes sense. Anarchy for the benefit of a few, isn't really a compelling argument.

Have you ever priced the cost of getting a medical degree or looked a the percentage of applicants accepted into medical schools? We are talking about the need for licensing. Once licensed, the number of drivers is a separate issue that should be determined by supply and demand.

Those "scare tactics" happen to merely be pointing out that bad things DO HAPPEN when drivers are unlicensed. Call them scare tactics and sloppy thinking if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that there have now been many crimes perpetrated by unregulated Uber drivers and many accidents. The public has a right to protect itself from those you use sophism to evade reasonable legal requirements for doing business. In my opinion, failing to consider the consequences of anarchy, is sloppy thinking.

So your argument is that because insisting on doctors getting a license it creates an artificial scarcity. Well in fact it does, for very good reason. Now it just so happens that a bad driver can just as easily kill his passenger as a bad doctor, so there are very good reasons for public safety to insure that certain licensing requirements for operating such a business are in place.

So yes, it does cause a certain measure of scarcity, but there are very good reasons to believe that the trade off is worth the cost. Like virtually, everything in life, there are tradeoffs.

You also point out the weakness of your own argument by saying "we would end up back with some sort of relatively stable model", Precisely, because allowing unlicensed free-lancers in a a business that actually has significant liability and safety costs, that shifts that burden on to everyone else. This is precisely how and why we got regulated taxi services in the first place. Thousands of lives were destroyed before it happened, so necessary regulation its not a trivial matter. Societies that permit some not to play by the rules that others must follow ultimate bear the costs of broken and abused rules. Now you may not see a problem with your wife being raped by a unlicensed driver with criminal intent, or being robbed when all you wanted was to get from point A to point B, or spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair because of an accident the driver had no insurance for, and you are content to just "take your chances". However, the rest of the public doesn't need to be compelled or forced to subsidize your good luck (so far).

Its pretty clear that New York and other cities just need to simply pass a law making it a crime to drive for Uber without a taxi license, proof of fitness to drive, and proof of liability insurance and give out rewards to anyone turning in an unregistered, unfit or uninsured driver. Everyone will then get free rides from Uber and the city's transportation costs will be solved.

With 11 million potentially deportable and $28,000/arrest, that would come to $308 billion. Perhaps the modern GOP will now legalize marijuana so they can sell the supposed $66,000/hr they earned through seizures. The problem with the latter figure is that its not clear if the drones had anything to do with these particular siezures, nor does it say exactly how the the government will recoup the value of the seizures if they don't sell it themselves. Then again, its a great reason to invest in Boeing stock.

If that were true, how do you account for countries like Germany and Denmark getting nearly 100% of their power during summer months from solar and still not managing to be among the world's strongest economies relative to their population size.

Think of it as the price per electron, since without electrons moving from one place to another there is no electricity.

The more you use, the more you pay. Rates should be set by law on a per electron basis, with those receiving paying those who are producing. There is no reason to permit some users to forced to pay more per electron than others. Why should users be forced to pay to make some other user's per electron cost cheaper at their expense, simply because some producers can provide fatter campaign contributions than others?